Downtown outdoor spaces

[danbrotherston]

While we're at it, there's no reason for Homer Watson to be a four lane divided highway north of Ottawa, some significant reconfiguration there could free up 3.5 acres of land.  Yes, acres.

And yes, that is the land covered by half of Homer Watson from the highway interchange to Stirling...man we waste absolute GOBS of land on roads.

Homer Watson was originally envisioned in the 1960s as a four-lane arterial road, continuing through Lakeside Park and connecting to (I think) Belmont Ave (also four lanes). Fortunately, that plan was cancelled -- but that's how we were left with a short stretch of four-lane divided road. And with a light traffic volume even now, 60 years later.

Now, what could be done here fairly easily is to move all the traffic to one side, and change the other side to parkland, from Stirling to the WB expressway on-ramp, extending Mensinger Park substantially.

Oh, I'm very familiar with those plans. But as those plans are cancelled, the space should be repurposed...we have continued to waste money paving a wastefully wide road for no reason for 40 years.

I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...fiscal conservatives are a joke...if they actually cared about the budget, they'd be freaking out about this bullshit.

The best time to do it was 40 years ago...(or whenever it was cancelled). The next best time is today. That being said, I don't expect anything to happen for years...it isn't a priority..chances are good the road will be repaved again before someone bothers to fight to change it. That happened with Belmont...it happened with Frederick. I'm going to fight a battle on Benton/Frederick, and we've somewhat made the best of a bad situation on Belmont, but I don't have the time and effort to do it for every time this stupidity has happened.

[tomh009]

The posts in another thread about the proposed plaza in front of the new Transit Hub have me wondering - should the City be looking to create a new plaza/green space in the Eastend?  If I held the magic development wand, I think I'd be looking at the block bounded by King, Cameron, Duke, and Madison.

Residents of King East have been wanting to get some kind of green space in the area for a while. There is a property on Cedar (by Nova Era across from the Market) is currently for sale and even if that could be turned into some small parkette or something, it would be great. There is the tiny bit of green space at Cedar/Weber but it really only has two benches and not much else, plus it faces Weber so it's not exactly a spot you want to spend time in. Maybe one of the many developments that are planned will eventually have something. Any time we want to go to a park we typically end up going to the Central Frederick neighbourhood (Brubacher Park/Suddaby/Firefighter Park). Something a bit closer would be nice.

I think that's a challenging area since there are only one or two blocks between King and Weber, and then another block to Charles, so getting far away from busy streets is pretty difficult, and there are not many larger e.g. commercial) properties that could be turned into a park, apart from things directly on King St E. How is the noise level at Wallenberg Park at Weber and Belzner? It's on Weber but set back from the street.

Knollwood Park is pretty big but maybe too far in the other direction?

[neonjoe]

I find it interesting how now the new suburban areas have a ton of parkland compared to the past. I currently live in the Mattamy development at Huron and Fischer Hallman. In our small enclave we have three parks - Seabrook Park, West Oak Park and Hewitt Park. Perhaps these are mandated by the city to be funded by the developer. I think in the downtown area they should also levy a fee or mandate some more privately owned public spaces for any redeveloped property. It's a win win for the city, the city gets new parkland and the develop has another amenity that they can tout in the sales info.
If programs are in place like this for the burbs they should definitely be in place in the core.

[panamaniac]

Residents of King East have been wanting to get some kind of green space in the area for a while. There is a property on Cedar (by Nova Era across from the Market) is currently for sale and even if that could be turned into some small parkette or something, it would be great. There is the tiny bit of green space at Cedar/Weber but it really only has two benches and not much else, plus it faces Weber so it's not exactly a spot you want to spend time in. Maybe one of the many developments that are planned will eventually have something. Any time we want to go to a park we typically end up going to the Central Frederick neighbourhood (Brubacher Park/Suddaby/Firefighter Park). Something a bit closer would be nice.

I think that's a challenging area since there are only one or two blocks between King and Weber, and then another block to Charles, so getting far away from busy streets is pretty difficult, and there are not many larger e.g. commercial) properties that could be turned into a park, apart from things directly on King St E. How is the noise level at Wallenberg Park at Weber and Belzner? It's on Weber but set back from the street.

Knollwood Park is pretty big but maybe too far in the other direction?

I had to look that one up.  All these years, I had never known it was there!

[danbrotherston]

I find it interesting how now the new suburban areas have a ton of parkland compared to the past. I currently live in the Mattamy development at Huron and Fischer Hallman. In our small enclave we have three parks -  Seabrook Park, West Oak Park and Hewitt Park. Perhaps these are mandated by the city to be funded by the developer. I think in the downtown area they should also levy a fee or mandate some more privately owned public spaces for any redeveloped property. It's a win win for the city, the city gets new parkland and the develop has another amenity that they can tout in the sales info.
If programs are in place like this for the burbs they should definitely be in place in the core.

Some of it is as a result of the requirement to do more storm water management. Ultimately I think there are some provisions as you describe in place, I know Waterloo has created more park space in existing largely urban areas.

[tomh009]

I think that's a challenging area since there are only one or two blocks between King and Weber, and then another block to Charles, so getting far away from busy streets is pretty difficult, and there are not many larger e.g. commercial) properties that could be turned into a park, apart from things directly on King St E. How is the noise level at Wallenberg Park at Weber and Belzner? It's on Weber but set back from the street.

I had to look that one up.  All these years, I had never known it was there!

I hope it works for you -- it might be sheltered enough not to be too noisy?

[ac3r]

Oh, and I would love for the city to buy 658 Stirling S from the current owner, before it's developed, and keep it as part of the park.

This? I figured it was part of Lakeside Park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/658+St...80.4966759

[tomh009]

Oh, and I would love for the city to buy 658 Stirling S from the current owner, before it's developed, and keep it as part of the park.

This? I figured it was part of Lakeside Park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/658+St...80.4966759

It might look that way when you are there, but it's actually a separate property and zoned for future residential. This is really a leftover from the 1960s, when Homer Watson was to continue through the park.

   

See the zoning map here for context:
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/zoneby...ULE_88.pdf

[Coke6pk]

Why don't you write a parking ticket then?  You have exactly the same amount of training and legal authority as the transit security guards have...

Okay, I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make here.  Do you feel that transit riders being subjected to constant enforcement, while constant and pervasive dangerous lawbreaking by drivers is all but ignored, isn't a problematic prioritization of enforcement? Or something else? Because I've already explained the point here, yet you are ignoring my explanation. So what am I to take from your statement?

The point of my statement is I don't understand why you are complaining about someone not doing a job function that isn't their job function.

I never said that Transit Security should or should not exist in its current format. I am saying they have every right to walk past illegally parked cars without issuing a ticket, because that's not their job. They don't have legal authority to write a parking ticket.

This is the same reason the street sweeper, the custodian, the doctor, the grocery clerk, the bike repair guy and the lawyer also walked by those same cars.... but no one posted to Twitter saying they were part of the government corruption that is so rampant in our car-centric law enforcement mindset.

Coke

[danbrotherston]

Okay, I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make here.  Do you feel that transit riders being subjected to constant enforcement, while constant and pervasive dangerous lawbreaking by drivers is all but ignored, isn't a problematic prioritization of enforcement? Or something else? Because I've already explained the point here, yet you are ignoring my explanation. So what am I to take from your statement?

The point of my statement is I don't understand why you are complaining about someone not doing a job function that isn't their job function. 

I never said that Transit Security should or should not exist in its current format.  I am saying they have every right to walk past illegally parked cars without issuing a ticket, because that's not their job.  They don't have legal authority to write a parking ticket.

This is the same reason the street sweeper, the custodian, the doctor, the grocery clerk, the bike repair guy and the lawyer also walked by those same cars.... but no one posted to Twitter saying they were part of the government corruption that is so rampant in our car-centric law enforcement mindset.

Coke

I'm not complaining about SOMEONE, I'm complaining about the SYSTEM. I never once said they should have ticked those vehicle, that wasn't the point. I never said it was their job, nor do I want it to BE their job. But why has our region and city chosen to invest so heavily transit enforcement instead of parking enforcement?

The street sweeper, the custodian, the doctor are not respresentative of the SYSTEM which has chosen to prioritize ticketing transit riders for skipping a ~3 dollar fare, instead of ticketing drivers who park their ~140k SUV illegally without paying a ~3 parking fee. Transit police are. 

Criticism of a system is not criticism of individuals. I was quite clear, if not in my first comment (which I admit was vague) in my subsequent comments.

[Coke6pk]

I'm not complaining about SOMEONE, I'm complaining about the SYSTEM. I never once said they should have ticked those vehicle, that wasn't the point. I never said it was their job, nor do I want it to BE their job. But why has our region and city chosen to invest so heavily transit enforcement instead of parking enforcement?

The street sweeper, the custodian, the doctor are not respresentative of the SYSTEM which has chosen to prioritize ticketing transit riders for skipping a ~3 dollar fare, instead of ticketing drivers who park their ~140k SUV illegally without paying a ~3 parking fee. Transit police are. 

Criticism of a system is not criticism of individuals. I was quite clear, if not in my first comment (which I admit was vague) in my subsequent comments.

* My bolding above:

From your own post earlier, it was determined that the vehicles had permits. So therefore, the system of oppression walked past two legally parked vehicles. OK I guess... if there is a point there, I missed it.

As for it being a pedestrian square, if vehicles are legally allowed to park there, then it isn't. Call it a pedestrian square if you wish. I'll call it a meatball sub. Doesn't matter, we are both wrong.

Coke

[taylortbb]

From your own post earlier, it was determined that the vehicles had permits.  So therefore, the system of oppression walked past two legally parked vehicles.  OK I guess... if there is a point there, I missed it.

As for it being a pedestrian square, if vehicles are legally allowed to park there, then it isn't.  Call it a pedestrian square if you wish.  I'll call it a meatball sub.  Doesn't matter, we are both wrong.

It was definitely intended to be a pedestrian square by the city. That part of the Queen St Placemaking project was abundantly clear. If someone accidentally issued parking permits for Carl Zehr Square we might not fine the people that used them, but we'd still ask them to move their cars (and get new permits with a correct location).

[tomh009]

From your own post earlier, it was determined that the vehicles had permits.  So therefore, the system of oppression walked past two legally parked vehicles.  OK I guess... if there is a point there, I missed it.

As for it being a pedestrian square, if vehicles are legally allowed to park there, then it isn't.  Call it a pedestrian square if you wish.  I'll call it a meatball sub.  Doesn't matter, we are both wrong.

It was definitely intended to be a pedestrian square by the city. That part of the Queen St Placemaking project was abundantly clear. If someone accidentally issued parking permits for Carl Zehr Square we might not fine the people that used them, but we'd still ask them to move their cars (and get new permits with a correct location).

Maybe someone needs to contact the city and find out the actual situation ...

[danbrotherston]

[Acitta]